Deleted
It’s all babble, containing too many unfounded assumptions to count. All we can say is that an assumption to the contrary runs into a wall per our Newtonian understanding of causation. So does everything else, including an assumption in the affirmative.
Nothing but babble.
Welcome to the forum Seremonia. Where are you from?
Don’t expect to get too much traction with your theory. There are quite a few people here who know their physics, and those of who don’t, still trust people who have degrees in physics, have published books about it or won Nobel Prizes. Those are the best people to go to for understanding the origins of space, time, matter, etc. The days of sitting in a room and simply speculating on where everything came from are over. Well, you can do it if you want, just don’t expect to find many followers here.
Sorry, that was a pretty harsh non-welcome for a newbie, so . . .
Welcome.
But it’s still babble.
IMO, one thing is indisputable. The initial event was preceded by the potential for that event. This potential itself needs not have been physical as long as it was causal to physical reality.
Forgive me if my presence is considered not sufficiently qualified to discuss in this forum. Already deleted. Have fun, bye … Cheers 
Was it something I said?
I’m not all that intellectual myself, but I would rather learn from those around me and grow as much as I can. I’m sorry that this guy didn’t stick around. The best free education in the world comes from asking questions from the right people. The only real question is who the right people are to ask.
I'm not all that intellectual myself, but I would rather learn from those around me and grow as much as I can. I'm sorry that this guy didn't stick around. The best free education in the world comes from asking questions from the right people. The only real question is who the right people are to ask.And how you pose the question or submit a proposal for "audit".
IMO, one thing is indisputable. The initial event was preceded by the potential for that event. This potential itself needs not have been physical as long as it was causal to physical reality.So the initial event didn't happen at the beginning of time?
IMO, one thing is indisputable. The initial event was preceded by the potential for that event. This potential itself needs not have been physical as long as it was causal to physical reality.So the initial event didn't happen at the beginning of time? I believe time began (for this universe) with a single mega-quantum event of the BB, but the inflationary epoch itself was only 10^-63 in duration. That was were the famous expression "everything happening in the same place at the same time" would be applicable. Could it be that 10^-63 is the time it takes for a quantum event without the restrictions of spacetime?. While that was still a duration in itself, it was a chaos which was not measurable within itself, it seems that it was not spacetime as we know it, which began immediately thereafter with the cooling and formation of elementary physical particles. Does time behave like spacetime in a black hole? Who knows? Still, for us, time began during the event of the BB along with space. You know my views on time being created along with measurable events. You cannot assign a time to a thing or event which does not yet exist in reality. But I see the possibility of a prior timeless (zero state) singularity, with (near) infinite but non-physical creative potential, a timeless latency, which inevitably became expressed in reality. To answer your question, no, I don't believe time existed before the BB which was the beginning of our universal timeline. I don't rule out other universes with different spacetimes, but those would be outside of our observation and do not exist in our time.
IMO, one thing is indisputable. The initial event was preceded by the potential for that event.That may appear to be so, with potential simply defined as http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/potential
: capable of becoming realHowever, in the context of the full definition:
Full Definition of POTENTIAL 1: existing in possibility : capable of development into actualityWe must seriously consider the following caveats: 1.Potentials exist in the "realm of possibilities" whereas events exist in the "realm of actualities" AND they are mutually exclusive realms. As such, potential "existing in possibility" imply it is not in the "realm of actuality". We should not conflate distinct realms by considering possibility and actuality as though they can exist in the same realm, which is fallacious. 2. The statement "the potential precedes the event" does not inform us with certainty wrt which potential will lead to which event, in actuality (of which we will know when that specific event occurs, notwithstanding what the potentials are) i.e. it is vague. 3. Precedence does not imply correlation and/or causation. That X precedes Y does not imply X is correlated to and/or caused Y to occur. As such, the statement is merely trivial, vague and misleading.
This potential itself needs not have been physical as long as it was causal to physical reality.Not quite simply so. Fundamentally, can potential cause an event to occur? Definition of causality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
Causality (also referred to as causation) is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first.Bold added by me. As potential exists in the "realm of possibility", it is not an event per se. This implies potential cannot cause an event to occur at all (which is as it is, in reality). :cheese:
kkwan, I understand your argument and inside spacetime one event may or may not cause another event. It depends on the aggregate potentials of existing conditions. But that would imply that all energy existed in physical form prior to the BB and we are back to “square one” on the question of ‘original’ causality and if the BB was the beginning or just an expression of a greater whole. Did the BB occur as a result of E = Mc^2 or was E = Mc^2 born at the time of the BB?
Is E = Mc^2 a causality or a result? IMO it is both.
I am trying to use the noun Potential in in most fundamental and abstract form. The potential for E = Mc^2 existed before it was expressed as an observable natural law (BB) in our reality in spacetime. By definition .
This is where Bohm’s proposals are so intriguing to me.
The holomovement concept is introduced in incremental steps. It is first presented under the aspect of wholeness in the lead essay, called "Fragmentation and Wholeness". There Bohm states the major claim of the book: "The new form of insight can perhaps best be called Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement" (Bohm, 1980, 11). This view implies that flow is, in some sense, prior to that of the ‘things’ that can be seen to form and dissolve in this flow. He notes how "each relatively autonomous and stable structure is to be understood not as something independently and permanently existent but rather as a product that has been formed in the whole flowing movement and what will ultimately dissolve back into this movement. How it forms and maintains itself, then, depends on its place function within the whole" (14). For Bohm, movement is what is primary; and what seem like permanent structures are only relatively autonomous sub-entities which emerge out of the whole of flowing movement and then dissolve back into it an unceasing process of becoming.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holomovement I believe the word potential, from which the probability of an observable event is formed, is perfectly suited in context of the thread.
I'm not all that intellectual myself, but I would rather learn from those around me and grow as much as I can. I'm sorry that this guy didn't stick around. The best free education in the world comes from asking questions from the right people. The only real question is who the right people are to ask.And how you pose the question or submit a proposal for "audit". Yes. indeed. My last post was a disaster. It's so messed up that It would be better if I start completely from scratch.
kkwan, I understand your argument and inside spacetime one event may or may not cause another event. It depends on the aggregate potentials of existing conditions. But that would imply that all energy existed in physical form prior to the BB and we are back to "square one" on the question of 'original' causality and if the BB was the beginning or just an expression of a greater whole. Did the BB occur as a result of E = Mc^2 or was E = Mc^2 born at the time of the BB? Is E = Mc^2 a causality or a result? IMO it is both.If time is associated with change and change is fundamental in the universe, then there is no reason to assume the BB was the "beginning" as what was "before" the BB can be considered and as such, the question of "original causality" does not arise at all. There is no "greater whole" than the universe and thus E = Mc^2 is valid "eternally" in the universe which has no "beginning" or "end".
I am trying to use the noun Potential in in most fundamental and abstract form. The potential for E = Mc^2 existed before it was expressed as an observable natural law (BB) in our reality in spacetime. By definition .As explained above, the question of the "potential" of the existence of E =Mc^2 prior to the BB does not arise in the context of an eternal universe with no beginning or end.
This is where Bohm's proposals are so intriguing to me.Bohm's proposals are grounded in the dynamic "unceasing process of becoming" rather than what is grounded in the static "reality" that the universe is all there is in existence and thus there is no greater "whole" per se. Consider relational quantum mechanics (RQM). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics RQM and quantum cosmology:The holomovement concept is introduced in incremental steps. It is first presented under the aspect of wholeness in the lead essay, called "Fragmentation and Wholeness". There Bohm states the major claim of the book: "The new form of insight can perhaps best be called Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement" (Bohm, 1980, 11). This view implies that flow is, in some sense, prior to that of the ‘things’ that can be seen to form and dissolve in this flow. He notes how "each relatively autonomous and stable structure is to be understood not as something independently and permanently existent but rather as a product that has been formed in the whole flowing movement and what will ultimately dissolve back into this movement. How it forms and maintains itself, then, depends on its place function within the whole" (14). For Bohm, movement is what is primary; and what seem like permanent structures are only relatively autonomous sub-entities which emerge out of the whole of flowing movement and then dissolve back into it an unceasing process of becoming.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holomovement
The universe is the sum total of all that is in existence. Physically, a (physical) observer outside of the universe would require the breaking of gauge invariance, and a concomitant alteration in the mathematical structure of gauge-invariance theory. Similarly, RQM conceptually forbids the possibility of an external observer.Hidden variables theories:
Bohm's interpretation of QM does not sit well with RQM. One of the explicit hypotheses in the construction of RQM is that quantum mechanics is a complete theory, that is it provides a full account of the world. Moreover, the Bohmian view seems to imply an underlying, "absolute" set of states of all systems, which is also ruled out as a consequence of RQM. We find a similar incompatibility between RQM and suggestions such as that of Penrose, which postulate that some process (in Penrose's case, gravitational effects) violate the linear evolution of the Schrödinger equation for the system.Many worlds interpretation (MWI) of QM:
The many-worlds family of interpretations (MWI) shares an important feature with RQM, that is, the relational nature of all value assignments (that is, properties). Everett, however, maintains that the universal wavefunction gives a complete description of the entire universe, while Rovelli argues that this is problematic, both because this description is not tied to a specific observer (and hence is "meaningless" in RQM), and because RQM maintains that there is no single, absolute description of the universe as a whole, but rather a net of inter-related partial descriptions.OTOH, we should consider this as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Hiley
Hiley has repeatedly discussed the reasons for which the Bohm interpretation has met resistance, these reasons relating for instance to the role of the quantum potential term and to assumptions on particle trajectories. He has shown how the energy-momentum-relations in the Bohm model can be obtained directly from the energy-momentum tensor of quantum field theory. He has referred to this as "a remarkable discovery, so obvious that I am surprised we didn't spot it sooner", pointing out that on this basis the quantum potential constitutes the missing energy term that is required for local energy-momentum conservation. In Hiley's view the Bohm model and Bell's inequalities allowed a debate on the notion of non-locality in quantum physics or, in Niels Bohr's words, wholeness to surface.And also quantum potential: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_potential
Building on the interpretation of the quantum theory introduced by Bohm in 1952, David Bohm and Basil Hiley in 1975 presented how the concept of a quantum potential leads to the notion of an "unbroken wholeness of the entire universe", proposing that the fundamental new quality introduced by quantum physics is nonlocality.Quantum potential and relativity:
Bohm and Hiley demonstrated that the non-locality of quantum theory can be understood as limit case of a purely local theory, provided the transmission of active information is allowed to be greater than the speed of light, and that this limit case yields approximations to both quantum theory and relativity.Which approach is the complete description of reality and nature?
kkwan, I understand your argument and inside spacetime one event may or may not cause another event. It depends on the aggregate potentials of existing conditions. But that would imply that all energy existed in physical form prior to the BB and we are back to "square one" on the question of 'original' causality and if the BB was the beginning or just an expression of a greater whole. Did the BB occur as a result of E = Mc^2 or was E = Mc^2 born at the time of the BB? Is E = Mc^2 a causality or a result? IMO it is both.If time is associated with change and change is fundamental in the universe, then there is no reason to assume the BB was the "beginning" as what was "before" the BB can be considered and as such, the question of "original causality" does not arise at all. There is no "greater whole" than the universe and thus E = Mc^2 is valid "eternally" in the universe which has no "beginning" or "end". I agree with your first paragraph that the potential E =Mc^2 is a universal constant. I have trouble with the second paragraph. What role did the Big Bang play in a universe that has no beginning or end?
I am trying to use the noun Potential in in most fundamental and abstract form. The potential for E = Mc^2 existed before it was expressed as an observable natural law (BB) in our reality in spacetime. By definition .
As explained above, the question of the "potential" of the existence of E =Mc^2 prior to the BB does not arise in the context of an eternal universe with no beginning or end.
This is where Bohm's proposals are so intriguing to me.Bohm's proposals are grounded in the dynamic "unceasing process of becoming" rather than what is grounded in the static "reality" that the universe is all there is in existence and thus there is no greater "whole" per se. Consider relational quantum mechanics (RQM). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics RQM and quantum cosmology:The holomovement concept is introduced in incremental steps. It is first presented under the aspect of wholeness in the lead essay, called "Fragmentation and Wholeness". There Bohm states the major claim of the book: "The new form of insight can perhaps best be called Undivided Wholeness in Flowing Movement" (Bohm, 1980, 11). This view implies that flow is, in some sense, prior to that of the ‘things’ that can be seen to form and dissolve in this flow. He notes how "each relatively autonomous and stable structure is to be understood not as something independently and permanently existent but rather as a product that has been formed in the whole flowing movement and what will ultimately dissolve back into this movement. How it forms and maintains itself, then, depends on its place function within the whole" (14). For Bohm, movement is what is primary; and what seem like permanent structures are only relatively autonomous sub-entities which emerge out of the whole of flowing movement and then dissolve back into it an unceasing process of becoming.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holomovement
The universe is the sum total of all that is in existence. Physically, a (physical) observer outside of the universe would require the breaking of gauge invariance, and a concomitant alteration in the mathematical structure of gauge-invariance theory. Similarly, RQM conceptually forbids the possibility of an external observer.Hidden variables theories:
Bohm's interpretation of QM does not sit well with RQM. One of the explicit hypotheses in the construction of RQM is that quantum mechanics is a complete theory, that is it provides a full account of the world. Moreover, the Bohmian view seems to imply an underlying, "absolute" set of states of all systems, which is also ruled out as a consequence of RQM. We find a similar incompatibility between RQM and suggestions such as that of Penrose, which postulate that some process (in Penrose's case, gravitational effects) violate the linear evolution of the Schrödinger equation for the system.Many worlds interpretation (MWI) of QM:
The many-worlds family of interpretations (MWI) shares an important feature with RQM, that is, the relational nature of all value assignments (that is, properties). Everett, however, maintains that the universal wavefunction gives a complete description of the entire universe, while Rovelli argues that this is problematic, both because this description is not tied to a specific observer (and hence is "meaningless" in RQM), and because RQM maintains that there is no single, absolute description of the universe as a whole, but rather a net of inter-related partial descriptions.OTOH, we should consider this as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Hiley
Hiley has repeatedly discussed the reasons for which the Bohm interpretation has met resistance, these reasons relating for instance to the role of the quantum potential term and to assumptions on particle trajectories. He has shown how the energy-momentum-relations in the Bohm model can be obtained directly from the energy-momentum tensor of quantum field theory. He has referred to this as "a remarkable discovery, so obvious that I am surprised we didn't spot it sooner", pointing out that on this basis the quantum potential constitutes the missing energy term that is required for local energy-momentum conservation. In Hiley's view the Bohm model and Bell's inequalities allowed a debate on the notion of non-locality in quantum physics or, in Niels Bohr's words, wholeness to surface.And also quantum potential: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_potential
Building on the interpretation of the quantum theory introduced by Bohm in 1952, David Bohm and Basil Hiley in 1975 presented how the concept of a quantum potential leads to the notion of an "unbroken wholeness of the entire universe", proposing that the fundamental new quality introduced by quantum physics is nonlocality.Quantum potential and relativity:
Bohm and Hiley demonstrated that the non-locality of quantum theory can be understood as limit case of a purely local theory, provided the transmission of active information is allowed to be greater than the speed of light, and that this limit case yields approximations to both quantum theory and relativity.
Which approach is the complete description of reality and nature?Thanks for the links. None seems to describe it all. I don't believe there is an acceptable fundamental TOE yet, but we know that the ability to express all these probable expressions in reality. IMO, Bohm tried to create a fundamental state of the universe in a non pertutbative way, a state of timeless latencies and potentials. A state of pure potential from which all causal events emerge. But as to wholeness, if you claim that the universe is all there is, then BB was the beginning and the universe is expanding or contracting, and has boundaries. The effect of the release of all universal energetic potential in a single mega-quantum event. But the implication and apparent probability for this event was already Implied in the timeless Potential field. An infinity of little possibilities, just waiting for a "change" (not a chance) to become expressed in reality, little blips, such as our Big Bang, bubbling up , existing for a few billion years , eventually disappearing into the eternal state of Potential. Bohm's "Holomovents" of an impersonal metaphysical wholeness seems satisfy both the objective physical science as well as the subjective spiritual experience by an observer. btw, I am not arguing for a greater physical wholeness outside the universe, but the potential that allowed for expansion (inflation) of this universe.
I have trouble with the second paragraph. What role did the Big Bang play in a universe that has no beginning or end?The BB could be only one particular event in a universe with no beginning or end which implies an infinite universe wrt space and time. There could be other BBs in such a universe.
IMO, Bohm tried to create a fundamental state of the universe in a non pertutbative way, a state of timeless latencies and potentials. A state of pure potential from which all causal events emerge.Consider process philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy
In opposition to the classical model of change as accidental (as by Aristotle) or illusory, process philosophy regards change as the cornerstone of reality — the cornerstone of the Being thought as Becoming. Modern philosophers who appeal to process rather than substance include Nietzsche, Heidegger, Charles Peirce, Alfred North Whitehead, Robert M. Pirsig, Charles Hartshorne, Arran Gare and Nicholas Rescher. In physics Ilya Prigogine distinguishes between the "physics of being" and the "physics of becoming". Process philosophy covers not just scientific intuitions and experiences, but can be used as a conceptual bridge to facilitate discussions among religion, philosophy, and science.Bold added by me. If change is "the cornerstone of reality" and time is associated with change, then time is fundamental in the universe. Bohm's philosophy of reality is process philosophy.
But as to wholeness, if you claim that the universe is all there is, then BB was the beginning and the universe is expanding or contracting, and has boundaries. The effect of the release of all universal energetic potential in a single mega-quantum event.If the universe is all there is and it is infinite wrt space and time, then the BB is not the beginning as the infinite universe has neither beginning nor end i.e. it is boundless wrt space and time.
But the implication and apparent probability for this event was already Implied in the timeless Potential field. An infinity of little possibilities, just waiting for a "change" (not a chance) to become expressed in reality, little blips, such as our Big Bang, bubbling up , existing for a few billion years , eventually disappearing into the eternal state of Potential.Whether the "timeless potential field" can be considered to "exist" is a moot point, if time and change are fundamentals in the universe.
Bohm's "Holomovents" of an impersonal metaphysical wholeness seems satisfy both the objective physical science as well as the subjective spiritual experience by an observer.That may be so. It is an open question.
btw, I am not arguing for a greater physical wholeness outside the universe, but the potential that allowed for expansion (inflation) of this universe.If so, there is no conflict wrt the universe as the whole.